District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10591

#1

Feb 05, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11529439 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Oscar Roberto Pacas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Category Form, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Hargus, Daniela) (Entered: 02/05/2026)

#2

Feb 06, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Paul G. Levenson. (JAM) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

#3

Feb 06, 2026

General Order 19-02

#4

Feb 06, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (FGD) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

#5

Feb 06, 2026

Copy re 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), sent to Duty AUSA via email and mailed to Respondents and USAO on 2/6/2026. (FGD) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

#6

Feb 06, 2026

Notice of Appearance

Feb 06, 2026

Copy Mailed

Feb 06, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#7

Feb 09, 2026

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#8

Feb 10, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. After reviewing the Petition and the Response, the Court hereby ALLOWS the Petition as follows. Respondents shall release Petitioner by 6 PM on February 17, 2026, unless he is provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) before that time. If a bond hearing occurs, Respondents may not at the hearing argue that Petitioner is or should be detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1225, nor may Petitioner be ordered detained pursuant to section 1225, and the burdens of proof at the hearing are as resolved by the First Circuit in Hernandez-Lara. Respondents shall not retaliate against Petitioner, at a bond hearing or otherwise, for filing this Petition. Respondents shall file a status report no later than February 19, 2026, describing their compliance with this Order. The Court renders this decision in light of the record before the Court, the prior decisions of this Court, and the government’s concession that this case is similar to prior cases resolved by this Court. See Doc. No. 7.(FGD) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

Feb 10, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines

#9

Feb 18, 2026

Status Report

#10

Feb 19, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 9 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report.Further status report due two days after the bond hearing or by March 12, 2026, whichever is earlier. (FGD) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

Feb 19, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines

#11

Mar 11, 2026

Status Report

#12

Mar 17, 2026

Judgment

#13

Apr 15, 2026

Enforce Judgment

#14

Apr 15, 2026

Memorandum in Support of Motion

#15

Apr 16, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 13 MOTION to Enforce Judgment.The respondents' opposition to this motion is due April 22, 2026. (FGD) (Entered: 04/16/2026)

Apr 16, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#16

Apr 22, 2026

Response to Motion

#17

Apr 30, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 13 MOTION to Enforce Judgment. On February 10, 2026, this Court allowed the habeas petition in this action and required the respondents to provide the petitioner a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), applying the burdens of proof under governing First Circuit precedent. Doc. No. 8. On March 9, an immigration judge (“IJ”) held a bond hearing at which the respondents argued the petitioner’s release would pose a danger to the community and a risk that the petitioner would flee (i.e., fail to appear at future immigration-court proceedings), offering exhibits in support of their position. See Doc. No. 14-2 (transcript of hearing); Doc. No. 14-5 (government exhibits, including report by immigration officers describing their arrest of petitioner; state probation record for petitioner; police reports of 2016 and 2018 arrests of petitioner; and docket information for criminal cases resulting from both arrests showing default warrants having issued in both cases). The petitioner offered exhibits to counter the respondents’ arguments. See Doc. Nos. 14-3, 14-4 (including letters of support from petitioner’s U.S. citizen cousin, another U.S. citizen sponsor, and eight other friends and family members, and dockets showing recent dismissal of criminal charges). The IJ denied bond, rejecting the government’s argument as to danger but finding the record established a risk of flight by a preponderance of evidence, and further finding that “there is not an amount of bond or conditions that can ameliorate that risk.” Doc. No. 14-2 at 4-5; see also Doc. No. 14-1.On April 15, 2026, the petitioner filed a motion asking this Court to enforce its prior order by requiring the petitioner’s immediate release, arguing his bond hearing was constitutionally inadequate. Doc. No. 13. The motion was accompanied by a well-written memorandum and exhibits containing the evidence and transcript from the bond hearing. Doc. Nos. 14, 14-1 to -5. The respondents have opposed the motion, arguing first that the petitioner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies by timely appealing the IJ’s decision to the BIA, and alternatively that the exhibits submitted by the petitioner undermine his arguments insofar as they show the IJ considered all the evidence, applied the governing standard, and found that no alternatives to detention would suffice in this case based on the petitioner’s history of failing to appear in state court. Doc. No. 16. Echoing the IJ, the respondents point out that the petitioner had two default warrants issued when he failed to appear at scheduled state-court hearings in 2018, neither of which were resolved until after his January 2026 arrest by ICE, and neither of which were the first such warrants in the underlying cases. See Doc. No. 16 at 3 & n.3 (citing Doc. No. 14-3 at 43-45, 47-49).After consideration of the parties’ submissions and the record before this Court, the petitioner’s motion is DENIED. The Court’s review in this context is circumscribed. SeeHernandez-Azuaje v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-13224-ADB, 2026 WL 221833, at *1 (D. Mass. Jan. 28, 2026). This Court is not a forum for de novo review of the IJ’s bond determination. That this Court might have reached a different decision—for example, by finding that the risk of flight suggested by the prior failures to appear could be mitigated via conditions placed on release in addition to a cash bond—is not alone reason to conclude that the bond proceeding in this case violated the Court’s prior order (or the Constitution). The Court notes that the petitioner proposed no conditions beyond bond to mitigate the risk of flight, nor were any other potential conditions to mitigate the risk of flight squarely raised by the record put before the IJ, and the IJ explained that she did “not find that a bond amount would be appropriate or conditions of release would be appropriate in this case” given the evidence before her establishing “an issue with appearing and complying with Court orders.” Doc. No. 14-2 at 5. Based on the record here, which the Court has reviewed carefully, the petitioner has not established that the IJ’s decision was rendered in disregard of the applicable legal standards or without consideration of all the evidence, or was otherwise so arbitrary that it violates the petitioner’s due-process rights. SeeHernandez-Azuaje, 2026 WL 221833, at *2; Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 144 (D. Mass. 2019). (FGD) (Entered: 04/30/2026)

Apr 30, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment